Mood v. Westchester County

Background

Tracy Mood sued Westchester County, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, and individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. Mood was a pretrial detainee at the Westchester County Jail, practiced Islam, and had diabetes.

Mood alleged that he was placed on a “2500 Cardiac diet” and received snack bags containing bologna, which he said conflicted with his Muslim faith. He also alleged that his meals primarily consisted of high-sugar foods, causing his glucose levels to rise to between 250 and 300. He claimed that he experienced weakness, fatigue, dizziness, blurred vision, drowsiness, swollen feet, and swollen legs.

Mood further alleged that Dr. Alexis Gendell and Dr. Raul Ulloa observed his elevated glucose levels but only told him to stop eating sweets. According to the complaint, they did not conduct further inquiries or testing and did not provide additional treatment.

Motion and Legal Standard

Correct Care Solutions, Dr. Ulloa, and Dr. Gendell—the Medical Care Defendants—filed an unopposed motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court was required to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, although it did not have to accept legal conclusions or unsupported conclusions of fact. The court also applied a less demanding reading because Mood was representing himself.

Medical-Care Claims

The court treated Mood’s claims as alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Because Mood was a pretrial detainee, the court analyzed the conditions-of-confinement claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against governmental deprivation of due process, rather than under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

A deliberate-indifference claim by a pretrial detainee requires allegations that the condition posed an objectively serious risk to health or safety and that the defendant intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps to reduce a known or reasonably knowable excessive risk. The court found that Mood satisfied the objective requirement by alleging that his diabetes required careful monitoring, that the diet caused dangerously high glucose levels, and that he suffered serious physical effects interfering with daily activities.

The court also found the allegations sufficient at the pleading stage regarding Drs. Ulloa and Gendell. Mood alleged that they personally observed his elevated glucose levels, knew about his symptoms, and took no further action. The court concluded that it could not rule out the possibility that reasonable physicians in their positions should have known that the diet and elevated glucose levels created an excessive risk to Mood’s health. The court distinguished allegations of mere disagreement over treatment or negligence, stating that Mood alleged that he received no treatment for his elevated glucose levels.

Claim Against Correct Care Solutions

The court analyzed the claim against Correct Care Solutions under the standards associated with Monell v. Department of Social Services. Under those standards, an organization cannot be held responsible merely because it employs someone who allegedly violated a constitutional right. The plaintiff must allege that the organization itself caused the violation through a policy, custom, or inadequate training or supervision, and must show a direct causal connection between that policy or custom and the alleged injury.

The court found that the complaint did not identify a formal policy or custom by Correct Care Solutions. Although the complaint referred to other food-related lawsuits and more than 100 inmate food-related grievances, it did not plausibly allege a policy or custom connected to the medical-care violation alleged against Drs. Ulloa and Gendell. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Correct Care Solutions without prejudice and granted Mood permission to replead them with more specific factual allegations about the company’s relevant policies or customs.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted in part and denied in part the Medical Care Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The claims against Correct Care Solutions were dismissed without prejudice. Mood’s deliberate-indifference claims against Drs. Gendell and Ulloa remained, as did the claims against the non-moving defendants: Westchester County, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, Commissioner Joseph K. Spano, Deputy Commissioner Leandro Diaz, Manual Mendoza, Assistant Warden Eric Middleton, and Assistant Warden Francis Delgrosso.

Mood could file an amended complaint regarding Correct Care Solutions by August 28, 2020. The opinion also stated that if he did not file by August 31, 2020, Drs. Gendell and Ulloa were directed to answer the original complaint by September 30, 2020.